Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  54 / 56 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 54 / 56 Next Page
Page Background

© 2012 AOAC INTERNATIONAL

V

OLUNTARY

C

ONSENSUS

S

TANDARDS

AOAC O

FFICIAL

M

ETHODS

OF

A

NALYSIS

(2012)

Appendix G, p. 2

These methods are then published as First Action

Official

Methods,

and used by analysts while additional information about

the method is collected.

Method reviewers may consider other forms of information in

lieu of the traditional collaborative study to demonstrate method

reproducibility.

Additional Information

Coates, S. (2012) “Alternative Pathway,”

Inside Laboratory

Management

16

(3), pp 10–12

Expert Review Panels, Policies and Procedures

, AOAC

INTERNATIONAL,

http://www.aoac.org/News/EXPERT%20

REVIEW%20PANELS%20final%20revision.pdf

Standard Format and Guidance for AOAC Standard Method

Performance Requirement (SMPR) Documents, AOAC

INTERNATIONAL,

http://www.aoac.org/ISPAM/pdf/3.5%20

SMPR%20Guideline%20v12.1.pdf

Guidance Documents

Requirements for First Action Official Methods

SM

Status

See

Figure 1 for process flowchart.

Expert Review Panels

(

1

) Supported by relevant stakeholders.

(

2

) Constituted solely for the ERP purpose, not for SMPR

purposes or as an extension of an SMPR.

(

3

) Consist of a minimum of seven members representing a

balance of key stakeholders.

(

4

) ERP constituency must be approved by the OMB.

(

5

) Hold transparent public meetings only.

(

6

) Remain in force as long as method in First Action status.

First Action Official Method

SM

Status Decision

(

1

) Must be made by an ERP constituted or reinstated post

March 28, 2011 for First Action

Official Method

SM

status approval.

(

2

) Must be made by an ERP vetted for First Action

Official

Method

SM

status purposes by OMB post March 28, 2011.

(

3

) Method adopted by ERP must perform adequately against

the SMPR set forth by the stakeholders.

(

4

) Method must be adopted by unanimous decision of ERP

on first ballot. If not unanimous, negative votes must delineate

scientific reasons.

(

5

) Negative voter(s) can be overridden by 2/3 of voting ERP

members after due consideration.

(

6

) Method becomes Official First Action on date when ERP

decision is made.

(

7

) Methods to be drafted intoAOAC format by a knowledgeable

AOAC staff member or designee in collaboration with the ERP and

method author.

(

8

) Report of First Action

Official Method

SM

status decision

complete with ERP report regarding decision, including scientific

background (references, etc.), to be published concurrently with

method in traditional AOAC publication venues.

Method in First Action Status and Transitioning to Final Action

Status

(

1

) Further data indicative of adequate method reproducibility

(between laboratory) performance to be collected. Data may be

collected via a collaborative study or by proficiency or other testing

data of similar magnitude.

(

2

) Two years maximum transition time [additional year(s) if

ERP determines a relevant collaborative study or proficiency or

other data collection is in progress].

(

3

) Method removed from Official First Action and OMA if no

evidence of method use available at the end of the transition time.

(

4

) Method removed from Official First Action and OMA if no

data indicative of adequate method reproducibility is forthcoming

as outlined above at the end of the transition time.

(

5

) ERP to recommend method to Final Action Official status

to the OMB.

(

6

) OMB decision on First to Final Action status.

These guidance documents were approved by the AOAC Board

of Directors on May 25, 2011.

Official First Action Method

x

ERPs continue to monitor for two years, until method is either

advanced or removed from system (period is extendable for active

data collection)

x

ERP recommends Final Action to OMB

x

OMB grants Final Action status

JAOAC

OMA

Web

ILM

Standard

Method

Performance

Requirements

Call for

Methods &

Literature

Search

Funded Stakeholder Panel

x

Managed by AOAC HQ

x

Properly vetted by OMB

x

Carefully documented and transparent

Working Groups

x

Managed by AOAC HQ

x

Carefully documented and

transparent

Expert Review Panels

x

Managed by AOAC HQ

x

Properly vetted by OMB

x

Carefully documented and

transparent

Figure 1. Summary of standards development

through

Official Methods of Analysis

.